Sadder than you and your conservatives friend sucking each others dick all the time in here?

I told you have the admin trace the ip if its that important an issue for you low-life

Jobless, welfare-leech meltdown!

Not a conservative. But I'm certainly not an uneducated, semi-literate, Obama ball licker like yourself. I thought this was your conservative gimmick, though. Why are you attacking them when you've crafted this gimmick to agree with a lot of the conservative's posts?

333386 and the rest of them it's not about the war they could care less,it's about obama, plan and simple. Any thing to make him appear to look bad they will post, shit 333386 will post anything from any source alot of it with half truths or no truth at all, he don't check any of the facts because he doesn't care,as long as it appears to make obama look bad

Obama doesn't need any help looking like moron in this situation. You want to blame someone for how this whole thing looks blame the POTUS. He explained nothing, showed no immanent threat to the US or is assets, has every asshat in his administration commenting about it, even AG Holder. Please tell me what the AG has to do with foreign policy. Sure Gaddafi's a bad guy, but what do we know about these rebels? Not a damn thing.

Gallup Poll: Libya Has Lowest Approval Rating Ever For U.S. Military Action

PRINCETON, NJ — A Gallup poll conducted Monday finds more Americans approving than disapproving of the military action against Libya by the United States and other countries.

The March 21 poll was conducted just days after the United States joined other countries in conducting airstrikes against Libya to enforce a United Nations no-fly zone. The U.N. passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone in response to reports that Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi had attacked Libyan forces opposed to his government.

The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades.

Americans showed the highest level of support for the 2001 military action in Afghanistan that was a response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Americans also widely supported U.S. airstrikes against Iraq in 1993 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Reuters Poll: Only 17% of Americans think Obama is a strong military leader

(MSNBC)- Only 17 percent of Americans see President Barack Obama as a strong and decisive military leader, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the United States and its allies began bombing Libya.

Nearly half of those polled view Obama as a cautious and consultative commander-in-chief and more than a third see him as indecisive in military matters.

Obama was widely criticized in 2009 for his months-long consultations with senior aides and military chiefs on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Critics called it dithering, but he said such a big decision required careful deliberation. He eventually dispatched 30,000 more troops.

But Obama is facing mounting discontent among opposition Republicans and from within his own Democratic Party over the fuzzy aims of the U.S.-led mission in Libya and the lack of a clearly spelled-out exit strategy for U.S. forces.

If the Libya mission becomes a foreign policy mess, mixed with perceptions Obama is a weak military leader, it could spell trouble for him in the 2012 presidential election.

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going "kinetic," as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way? The public was patient, at least it seemed patient, but everyone wanted action. A full military action—air and boots—would be the essential demonstration of seriousness—to bin Laden, America, and the world.

In common usage, "kinetic" is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, "active, as opposed to latent." Dropping bombs and shooting bullets—you know, killing people—is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy's communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are "non-kinetic." (Why not "latent"? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether "the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare," Donald Rumsfeld answered, "Yes!" (Rumsfeld uses the words "kinetic" and "non-kinetic" all the time.)

The recent war in Afghanistan demonstrates that when the chips are down, we still find it necessary to go kinetic. Indeed, for all its novel methods of non-kinetic warfare, today's military is much more deadly than it ever was before. For the foreseeable future, civilians and at least a few soldiers will continue to be killed in war. "Kinetic" seems an objectionable way to describe this reality from the point of view of both doves and hawks. To those who deplore or resist going to war, "kinetic" is unconscionably euphemistic, with antiseptic connotations derived from high-school physics and aesthetic ones traceable to the word's frequent use by connoisseurs of modern dance. To those who celebrate war (or at least find it grimly necessary), "kinetic" fails to evoke the manly virtues of strength, fierceness, and bravery. Imagine Rudyard Kipling penning the lines, "For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'/ But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the U.K goes kinetic." Is it too late to remove this word from the Washington lexicon? Chatterbox suggests a substitute: "fighting."

Carney holds first post-trip briefing off camera: 'I didn't have any white or blue shirts'... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Libya Op: Lowest Approval of Any GALLUP-Polled Military Action...

Obama doesn't need any help looking like moron in this situation. You want to blame someone for how this whole thing looks blame the POTUS. He explained nothing, showed no immanent threat to the US or is assets, has every asshat in his administration commenting about it, even AG Holder. Please tell me what the AG has to do with foreign policy. Sure Gaddafi's a bad guy, but what do we know about these rebels? Not a damn thing.

First of all no country is an "imminent threat" to the United States.....and he said we are doing this to protect citizens from being slaughtered...and it really doesn't matter what he says....all wars are unpredictable and you have to be flexible.....and the truth is, NO WAR has a real exit strategy...we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.....EXIT STRATEGIES really mean nothing and never pan out in the end anyway

First of all no country is an "imminent threat" to the United States.....and he said we are doing this to protect citizens from being slaughtered...and it really doesn't matter what he says....all wars are unpredictable and you have to be flexible.....and the truth is, NO WAR has a real exit strategy...we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.....EXIT STRATEGIES really mean nothing and never pan out in the end anyway

You don't have the slightest fucking idea who the rebels are, and if they are even Libyans. And yes it does matter what the POTUS say, seeing as how he is the command in chief of the armed forces. Every war has an exit strategy it's called victory, not fucking nation building or winning the hearts and minds horse shit. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan because winning might make the losers feel bad and we wouldn't want that

You don't have the slightest fucking idea who the rebels are, and if they are even Libyans. And yes it does matter what the POTUS say, seeing as how he is the command in chief of the armed forces. Every war has an exit strategy it's called victory, not fucking nation building or winning the hearts and minds horse shit. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan because winning might make the losers feel bad and we wouldn't want that

what have the Russians done for peace in the world???............NOTHING

You're an ugly, arrogant american mofo! Your turn mofo?

Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (Russian: Станислав Евграфович Петров) (born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces who deviated from standard Soviet protocol by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.[1] This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies.

Obama doesn’t tell you what he’s thinking. He keeps his motives to himself. Cherished long-term ideological goals are advanced as pragmatic fixes to concrete problems in the present. Now we’re seeing the familiar domestic pattern in foreign policy as well.

Few Americans realize that Obama has had a longstanding interest in multilateral efforts to combat war crimes and genocide. Obama would like to see a more constraining international legal regime on war crimes, even at the cost of national sovereignty, not to mention the blood and treasure of the countries doing the enforcing. In general, Obama has said little about his larger foreign policy goals.

...In 2005, Obama contacted Power after reading her book on genocide. There followed a long conversation, after which Power left Harvard to work for Obama, quic‘kly emerging as his senior foreign policy advisor.

...Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displaceQaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it. But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that’s staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law. That requires a “pure” case of intervention on humanitarian grounds. Power’s agenda would explain why Obama acted when he acted, and why the public rationale for action has not included regime change.

Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S.-led attacks against an autocrat in oil-rich Libya have opened the Obama administration to questions about why it's holding back from more robust support for opposition forces challenging other dictators.

What is the difference, some have asked, between the situation in Libya and the uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria and even sub-Saharan African nations such as Ivory Coast?

The bombardment by Washington and its allies of the air defenses and troops of Moammar Gadhafi, unquestionably an international pariah, was motivated by a desire to prevent a possible slaughter of rebels fighting to end his erratic 42-year reign. There's hope among U.S. and allied leaders that the anti-government forces will move toward democracy as they appear to be after revolutions in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia

But the military intervention begs many questions and illustrates once again the stark inconsistences in an American foreign policy that tries to balance democratic ideals against pragmatic national interests.

The easy but unsatisfactory answer is that the United Nations called for action against Libya as did that nation's neighbors in the Arab League. And the U.N. also is already deeply involved in Ivory Coast where the internationally recognized president is calling for U.N. peacekeepers to use force against incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo, who has attacked civilians and refuses to cede power.

Mark Quarterman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Obama was engaged in the "art of the possible" in Libya.

"The ability to reach a consensus on action in Libya, in the face of potential crimes against humanity," he said in a recent commentary, "is not illegitimate simply because a similar consensus cannot be reached in other circumstances."

Nicholas R. Burns, a Harvard professor who was in the upper reaches of State Department decision making for much of the past two decades, said Obama had no choice.

"With Benghazi being overrun by Gadhafi, the president had to use force," he said. "It has been done effectively. It saved those people and gave new life to the rebels."

But why not act on behalf of anti-government forces that have come under attack as they challenge entrenched autocracies in Yemen and Bahrain?

"We can't be antiseptically consistent," Burns said. "The United States has huge national security interests in those countries."

And that's where the pragmatism over national security interests comes in.

The U.S. 5th Fleet base in Bahrain allows the United States to project military power in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. In Yemen, the long-time president works closely with Washington in the fight against al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula.

Also at work are fears of Iran - in Bahrain and its mentor and neighbor Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer. The monarchies in both countries are deeply distrustful of their Shiite Muslim populations who are suspected of being under the influence of Iran. Arab nations dread an expansion of Iran's outsized political and military ambitions in the Gulf.

Burns, whose State Department tenure included the administration of President Bill Clinton, also recalls that many of the foreign policy decision makers now working for Obama have deep and troubling memories of the mass killings in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo. Among that group are the former first lady and now Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, a key Africa adviser for President Clinton.

History argues forcefully that U.S. intervention could have prevented the Rwanda massacres and limited the carnage in the Balkans. That would explain pressure Obama reportedly felt from both Hillary Clinton and Rice as the U.N. resolution for a no-fly zone and other action in Libyan started coming together last week.

Beyond that, the American relationship with Israel, Washington's closest Mideast ally, always hangs above U.S. decision making in the region. Any final peace agreement among the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors depends heavily on both Saudi Arabia and Syria. Saudi endorsement of any peace plan would carry huge weight with other Arab nations.

That's especially important after the revolution that swept Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power. He had served as a U.S. proxy in attempts to arrange peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the wider Middle East.

What's more, Syria is still seen - despite its close ties with Iran and its support for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon - as a potential peace partner. It is desperate to win back control of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. That reality keeps Damascus in play as one of the Arab rejectionist states that could be coaxed into a peace deal.

Obama has worked assiduously since taking office to repair the U.S. image in the world, an image that was badly damaged by Washington's invasion of Iraq and its long war to defeat the Taliban militancy and its al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan and in the border region with Pakistan.

As he stepped into the Libyan conflict in a major way, Obama was eager to keep America's profile as low as possible. He has routinely said, as has Clinton, that the operation in Libya would soon be ceded to NATO control. The White House has no interest in attaching itself deeply to yet another conflict in a Muslim country.

That's easier said than done.

----

EDITOR'S NOTE - Steven R. Hurst has covered foreign affairs for more than 30 years.